Sts.Tenny v. The State Rep. By Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 06-11-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR

1. STS.Tenny S/o. Mr.Sudharsanbabu, No.14A, 9th Street, Thendral Nagar, Gopalapuram, Pattabiram, Chennai - 600072.

Petitioner(s) Vs

1. The State Rep. by Inspector of Police, T-9, Pattabiram Police Station, Pattabiram, Chennai. (Crime No.287/2025) Respondent(s) PRAYER To enlarge the petitioner on Anticipatory Bail in the event of his arrest by the respondent police in Crime No. 287/2025 pending on the file of the Inspector of Police, T-9, Pattablram Police Station, Tiruvallur District, on such terms and conditions that this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances and thus render justice.

For Petitioner(s):

Rajesh K For Respondent(s):

Mr.S.Udayakumar Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

The earlier bail application filed by the petitioner was dismissed by this court in Crl.O.P.No. 23692 of 2025, dated 28.5.2025, on the following grounds. "2. Earlier this Court dismissed the anticipatory bail application in Crl.O.P.No.23692 of 2025 dated 28.08.2025 on the following grounds; "3.Conversation of the defacto complainant, produced before this Court, indicates that the petitioner had intimidated the defacto complainant with dire consequence if she reported the matter to the police. The nature of the complaint and the materials placed before this Court indicate that this petitioner has to be secured and subjected to custodial interrogation.

4. In view of the above, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed."

3. Earlier order has been passed with the above observations, this Court is of the view that the same could not be revisited by this Court without any change in circumstances which dispel the custodial interrogation.

4. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed."

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner's case has not been properly considered before this court, and the de facto complainant, by suppressing the earlier complaint, lodged a second complaint, and further, there are contradictory statements recorded in the two complaints.

3. I have gone through the earlier order, which recorded that this court, after applying its mind and also after seeing the materials placed, was not inclined to grant anticipatory bail. Hence, without any valid change in circumstances, this court is not inclined to reconsider the order. Accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed. 06-11-2025 Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes mpa To 1.The State Rep. by Inspector of Police, T-9, Pattabiram Police Station, Pattabiram, Chennai. (Crime No.287/2025) 2.The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras.

K.RAJASEKAR J.

mpa CRL OP No. 29297 of 06-11-2025